Why do people take so long to grade stuff

I have never understood why profs take so long to grade and hand back stuff.  I can see that when you have 250 in a class, and you have no or just one TA.  But when a class is not crazy huge, and you have a TA, there's just no excuse.  Don't you agree?

In two separate courses, I handed in a short paper last week.  Actually, it was early October, so it's more like two weeks.  One was a four pager critical analysis paper.  The other was a two-page paper proposal.  TWO fucking pages.  Each class has about 80 students, and each prof has a TA.

Now maybe the four pager takes a little longer.  But the two-page proposal?  Should it have been graded and handed back within maybe a week?

In 20+ years teaching, I had always handed back work the next class.  I don't think I have EVER failed in that endeavour.  Got me thinking though.  Did people even care?  I mean, was it important to students?  Or did I work my ass off for something that no one gave a shit about?  Why do I think this?  I look around the room, and it doesn't strike me that my fellow students are particularly upset or even concerned that the short little papers still haven't found their way back to us after two weeks.  

In any event, I think the prof has an obligation to turn around as quickly as possible.  If they believe that students are their top priority, they should act that way.  Put your money where your mouth is, and all that. Otherwise, it just smacks of hypocrisy and all that.

Would love to hear people's thoughts on this.

Why, you may ask, am I so eager to get the papers back?  Well, for both courses, there's a big paper (12+ pages) coming due at the end of the semester.  And these initial ones form the premise of my main paper.  I already actually finished the first draft of one, so I'm not too concerned (unless the mini one got trashed).  But the other one I am waiting to see if my proposal is okay before I write the big one.  Does that make sense?

Oh, you wanna know what those two papers are about?

One is political sociology.  I merged different theoretical perspectives (e.g. Marx, Gramsci, etc) and came up with a model to better explain and predict when mass unrests will happen.  And then I apply it to an analysis of the shit that's happening in Hong Kong.  How does that sound?

The other is for 19th Century European History.  I am writing about the Crimean War, and within that the Charge of the Light Brigade, and draw parallels between the two.  My thesis is that neither one is necessary, neither one changes anything, and both are wanton destruction of life.  So I  view the charge of the light brigade as a microcosm of the Crimean War.  What do you think?

I'm not totally sure about the crimean war one.  19th Century Europe is not a main area of interest for me.  So it's pretty uncertain as to whether my plan is good.  That's why I want to wait for the feedback on my proposal before I start writing it.  AND I FUCKING HATE WAITING.

Besides, this is the only one for which I don't even have a good first draft ready.

Let's hope I get those papers back soon.

And hey, please, if you have any thoughts on the issues I raised (about grading), and/or about the papers I mentioned above, PLEASE share them with me!  I'd love to know that I am not just writing this and I'm the only reader.  MERCI!